EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[painted wolf]

Your confusion about chance, probabilities, and randomness clearly are at the root of your failure to see that evolution has no scientific basis for preferring "chance" as the ACTUAL agent of change (it is an abstraction) . . . merely our best estimator of its appearance pattern using probabilities.

Your confusion about evolution is clearly at the root of your failure to see that chance is not an "agent of change" in evolution.
Mutations may not be predictable but they are hardly by 'chance'. The selection that works to either keep them in a population or weed them out is not chance at all.

Again you seem to have an issue with the concept of randomness and are using that to make strange conclusions about the rest of science.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Are you even aware of the contradiction in the bolded sentence?

Are you even aware that there is no contradiction? Saying that it happened by chance is not saying chance actually caused it.

I never said I used science to determine that there was a God . . . I said I was made personally aware through deep meditation that the universe was conscious. I used science and philosophy and theology and mythology to try to find an explanation I could intellectually accept for . . . what was clearly (for ME) an absolute reality.

Regardless, science cannot help with that. You might have tried to use science, but it would have been pointless in a search like that.

Your confusion about chance, probabilities, and randomness clearly are at the root of your failure to see that evolution has no scientific basis for preferring "chance" as the ACTUAL agent of change (it is an abstraction) . . . merely our best estimator of its appearance pattern using probabilities.

Your confusion about science and your refusal to even attempt to learn in general are clearly at the root of your failure to have an honest discussion on this topic.

They don't ignore it . . . they reject it . . . very different. Purpose . . . God . . . all the same bailiwick. Therefore they are NOT neutral.

You can keep saying it all you want, but it won't make it true. They ignore it, not reject it. There are plenty of theistic scientists, painted wolf being one of them. If science truly did reject God, then there could be no such thing as a theist who's a scientist, but don't let that get in the way of your anti-science ramblings.

Also, you're right, purpose and God in this case are the same thing. Neither has a place in science.

 

[themadhair]

Your resort to pure ad hominem instead of learned rebuttal using examples and actual knowledge instead of assertions . . .

Google what ‘ad hominem’ means. An insult used IN ADDITION to an argument is not an ad hominem, and in my case it was not an insult since it was derived from the argument I presented. Your comments do demonstrate your ignorance of science and scientific discovery, you do seem to harbour the delusion that god (or more specifically your concept of god which no one else seems to know) is an explanatory mechanism (you call it an ‘alternative’ after all) and you berate science as being a non-explanation for using probabilities without being able to demonstrate that you know what a probabilistic prediction even is. Simple observations are not ad hominems.

I do not believe, for a single moment based on your comments, that you know what a probabilistic prediction even is. You could prove me wrong by citing a few examples and why they are non-explanations, but I won’t be holding my breath.

How old are you, anyway? They are non-explanations at the philosophical level (are you familiar with that?) They explain nothing phenomenologically.

Stunning. I may have been more accurate with that Dunning-Kruger comment than I first thought. Could you have crafted a more pointless non-response here? Do you even know what a probabilistic prediction even is? Can you cite one then explain why your current example is without scientific explanation (this is science after all)?

But philosophically, a non-explanation (using randomness and probabilities) "that works, makes predictions and accurately describes the outcome in question" says NOTHING about whether God was involved or not, period

How can someone have such a moment of clarity and then throw it all away by adding the addendum “ . . . so how could God be an additional explanation since it could be the ACTUAL one?” ?? It is almost as if you haven’t actually thought about what you are espousing, as well as failing to realise that god is a non-explanation. Considering that you just stated in the above quoted comment what people have been trying to get you to realise is promising though.

Not my God . . . there is no such thing as supernatural.

So this entire circle-jerk of yours is based upon a concept of god that you neither defined for us nor even indicated that your meaning of it differs from what the vast vast majority on the planet consider it to be. Rather pointless isn’t it?

Perhaps I just see the philosophical implications of the underlying assumptions more clearly than others . . . a distinct possibility given the responses here.

More likely you simply don’t know what you are talking about. On the one hand you actually acknowledged the point that science says nothing about whether god(s) were/were not involved, and yet you talk about ‘philosophical implications of the underlying assumptions’ DESPITE THE FACT THAT THOSE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS GAURANTEE THAT SCIENCE CANNOT SAY ANYTHING REGARDING GOD(S).

Consider this thought experiment. We use probability to predict the distributions of particles in quincunxs or bean machines. Does the fact we use probability to determine those distributions mean we do not have an explanation? Should be fun to see how your philosophical irrelevancies fare against a real-world example.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting discussion. A couple of quick observations....

1) Probabilities indeed are not explanations; they are predictions. Just because we can predict the frequency of something occuring, that does not mean we know the underlying cause. To put this to the example used so often in this thread, we can use probability calculations to predict the frequency of mutations, but that alone does not mean we understand their cause. For that, we go to other areas of inquiry.

2) From what I can tell, a lot of folks are assuming what MysticPhD means when he says "God", but has anyone actually asked him what his version of "God" is?

3) MysticPhD claims that his god is natural. That means his god is open to investigation and testing, which begs the question: What data supports the existence of this god?

 

[painted wolf]

1) Probabilities indeed are not explanations; they are predictions. Just because we can predict the frequency of something occuring, that does not mean we know the underlying cause. To put this to the example used so often in this thread, we can use probability calculations to predict the frequency of mutations, but that alone does not mean we understand their cause. For that, we go to other areas of inquiry.

Quite, but we do know that mutations are very common, everyone has them. (lots of them)
We also know how they happen and why. There is no need of "voodoo math" in genetics.

2) From what I can tell, a lot of folks are assuming what MysticPhD means when he says "God", but has anyone actually asked him what his version of "God" is?

Good question... I may have, I can't remember.

3) MysticPhD claims that his god is natural. That means his god is open to investigation and testing, which begs the question: What data supports the existence of this god?

Apparently you can't test for God... you just have to attribute everything to it.

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

Again you seem to have an issue with the concept of randomness and are using that to make strange conclusions about the rest of science.
wa:do

Perhaps I need to be very clear . . . I fully understand and accept science, scientific method, and specifically (to stay OT) evolution theory . . . except for the IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE OF RANDOMNESS, CHANCE, OR WHATEVER as the explanation for the appearance of mutations. I also bristle at the use of nature and natural AS IF they are something other than God and God's design . . . as in . . . "Oh there is no God . . . science has proven that those (_fill in the blank_) are just the result of "natural" processes . . . like "natural" selection (using survival). It is a subtle but insidious distinction I am railing against that does much unnecessary damage to belief in God (I could care less what it does to religions). Is this any clearer? I am pro-science AND pro-God . . . because the reality was made unambiguous to me personally.

 

[MysticPhD]

Regardless, science cannot help with that. You might have tried to use science, but it would have been pointless in a search like that.

I suspect you misunderstand yet again. Science was not to establish the reality of God . . . my meditation experiences do that quite routinely now. I am a rational and intelligent man who REQUIRES something be grounded in what I DO KNOW. I needn't know everything . . . but it must have SOME connection to what I know to be reality (that would be science). There are also myriad explanations, myths, theories, philosophies about God . . . that kind of incoherence is anathema to my mind. I needed closure and coherence in ALL aspects. I found it to my satisfaction and am content. I am saddened when the existence and misunderstanding of science causes so much angst among those who want to believe there is a God . . . because I KNOW (personally) there is and that there is NOTHING contradictory in science.

Your confusion about science and your refusal to even attempt to learn in general are clearly at the root of your failure to have an honest discussion on this topic.

Your presumptions about me and my knowledge and abilities prevent your engaging in an honest discussion on this topic.

You can keep saying it all you want, but it won't make it true. They ignore it, not reject it. There are plenty of theistic scientists, painted wolf being one of them. If science truly did reject God, then there could be no such thing as a theist who's a scientist, but don't let that get in the way of your anti-science ramblings.

My "ramblings" are NOT anti-science . . . they are a request for TRUE neutrality . . . not the negative one supported by the Friar's silly razor.

Also, you're right, purpose and God in this case are the same thing. Neither has a place in science.

I couldn't agree more . . . but neither should they be rejected or implied to be unnecessary or unsupported by science . . . since they clearly are supported and not contradicted. To me . . . it is the supreme irony . . . that science finds indisputable design (ex. DNA), method (ex. survival), and then engages in extreme intellectual gymnastics to try to suggest how the hell they came to be.

 

[MysticPhD]

1) Probabilities indeed are not explanations; they are predictions. Just because we can predict the frequency of something occuring, that does not mean we know the underlying cause. To put this to the example used so often in this thread, we can use probability calculations to predict the frequency of mutations, but that alone does not mean we understand their cause. For that, we go to other areas of inquiry.

Understanding at last!:yes::clap Welcome.:bow:

2) From what I can tell, a lot of folks are assuming what MysticPhD means when he says "God", but has anyone actually asked him what his version of "God" is?

True . . God is everything that comprises and establishes our reality (Panentheism . . . not pantheism) . . . the Universal Field that accounts for the parameters and metrics we use so cavalierly in science is established by God's consciousness. The purpose of the Universe is to procreate that consciousness using life.

3) MysticPhD claims that his god is natural. That means his god is open to investigation and testing, which begs the question: What data supports the existence of this god?

Not to stray too far off topic . . . here are a few of the more cogent points. Our universe requires a universal field to establish the parameters of it (reflected in physics "laws" and our mathematics). If it were measurable we would surely have detected it by now. The fact that 95+% of our Universe is comprised of unmeasurable forms of energy (dark energy and dark matter) that are not directly accessible to our technology (only indirect measures of activity and effects). The fact that consciousness requires a field to "exist" or it is just an abstraction or illusion. The fact that our consciousness is not directly accessible to our technology (only indirect measures of activity and effects).etc.

 

[painted wolf]

except for the IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE OF RANDOMNESS, CHANCE, OR WHATEVER as the explanation for the appearance of mutations.

Again, are you suggesting that god is so incompetent/cruel that he purposefully mucks up our genes? Or that he spends endless hours making useless changes to them?

I also bristle at the use of nature and natural AS IF they are something other than God and God's design .

Science can not say "goddidit". Bristle all you want, but things happen naturally... unless you want to admit to a inept meddling deity?

"Oh there is no God . . . science has proven that those (_fill in the blank_) are just the result of "natural" processes . . . like "natural" selection (using survival). It is a subtle but insidious distinction I am railing against that does much unnecessary damage to belief in God (I could care less what it does to religions). Is this any clearer? I am pro-science AND pro-God . . . because the reality was made unambiguous to me personally.

Calm your fears... science doesn't stop people from having faith.
Knowing that earthquakes and hurricanes are natural doesn't stop people from believing in god.

Personally I don't want a god that is so bad at setting up the universe that it feels it needs to constantly tinker with it... mostly to useless or detrimental effect.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but who are WE to question GOD?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I also bristle at the use of nature and natural AS IF they are something other than God and God's design .

- and -

I am pro-science AND pro-God . . . because the reality was made unambiguous to me personally.

Isn't that odd? I often bristle at people that assume that, because they've had some sort of personal epiphany, the rest of the world should bend to their will.

I'll take science, and mine will be the version that eschews God (or any other supernatural force) as an explanation for anything.

If you wish to insist on blending "God designed it" into your version of science - by all means - do so.

Just don't expect the rest of the rational world to bend to your bristling will.

 

[painted wolf]

Our universe requires a universal field to establish the parameters of it

Why?

Not to derail the thread or anything, but who are WE to question GOD?

We are very clever critters who question everything.
If god didn't want us asking questions we would be pretty boring.

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

Again, are you suggesting that god is so incompetent/cruel that he purposefully mucks up our genes? Or that he spends endless hours making useless changes to them?

No . . . the process is designed to generate change and select the best versions and weed out the lesser. Our inability to see it as an improvement and not just a serendipitous change based on random environmental factors is irrelevant. (Notice the use of our ignorance words serendipity and random.) If it helps I see us as cells in God's consciousness "body." Imagine your relationship to the cells in your body. You are essentially a God to them. How much attention do you pay to them? What is your involvement? When they "pray" to you (pain signals) . . you address them . . . otherwise you expect them to function as designed. IF each individual cell was aware (as we are) they would think their brief existence was all there was and then they die . . . seem familiar at all.

Science can not say "goddidit". Bristle all you want, but things happen naturally... unless you want to admit to a inept meddling deity?

Of course not . . . but separate explanatory names (nature and natural) are not supportable. You cannot scientifically establish they are separate from God or God's will. I really don't know what the solution is . . . because to use God is societally foolish and would probably cause more harm than good. But the loss of belief in what is to me indisputably true seems a pathetic legacy for our otherwise fabulous scientific achievements. What I have been subjecting you all to is my frustration and emotional aggravation at the absurd schism between science and God that has become intransigent and seemingly ineradicable. I apologize . . . but frustration does that to us all.

 

[JMorris]

using the same metaphor, our cells can kill us, so we can kill god? can we give god cancer? a brain tumor?

if your frustrated about the seperation of science and god, you should get some scientists together and prove god exists, not only that, but your personal definition of god.

 

[MysticPhD]

Why?

If you have to ask . . . I must assume you are less of a scientist than you have been billed as. A "field" refers to an area under the influence of some force, such as gravity or electricity. A universal (or unified) field theory would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various individual field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations. As Michio Katu said, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." Absent a field our mathematics would not work and be meaningless. Maxwell's electromagnetic field and Einstein's gravity field became problematic when Quantum theory (strong and weak nuclear forces) emerged. Relativity explains the macro world and quantum theory explains the micro . . . but they are incompatible. The idea that "nature" would prescribe two completely incompatible ways for the world to work was unacceptable . . . the Holy Grail became the search for the universal (or unified) field theory that would reconcile ALL the forces that establish the current fields. The standard model reconciles the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces . . . but not gravity. NO field is NOT an option.

 

[MysticPhD]

using the same metaphor, our cells can kill us, so we can kill god? can we give god cancer? a brain tumor?

I doubt we have sufficient importance . . . but cancerous minds do exist . . . they try to develop at the expense of other minds by dominating their beliefs . . . like Islam. I suspect that God has "remedies" for all such maladaptations and "diseases."

if your frustrated about the seperation of science and god, you should get some scientists together and prove god exists, not only that, but your personal definition of god.

But I am content . . . and re -tired . . . it is just frustrating to witness. :sorry1:

 

[JMorris]

but using your metaphor, cells can kill us, we all know that, so if we're god's cells, why couldnt we kill him? and makes you sure Islam is a cancer, and whatever it is you believe isnt? what makes you think human are cells in god's body and not a virus?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I must assume you are less of a scientist than you have been billed as.

Just a "heads up" fo you, Mystic.

Painted Wolf has a phenomenal track record on this site. She is as well versed as anyone I have ever met, in regards to the biological sciences. She has a long history of helping to educate the members that are truly seeking knowledge, while exhibiting the utmost in patience.

Now, at this point, you have shown yourself to be pretty inflexible in regards to your views on the mixing of science and God, and that is fine. With that being said, if you wish to retain some semblance of credibility, you might want to address the points she makes, rather than question her qualifications as a scientist.

Not that I think it will help, but at least I gave you the courtesy.

 

[painted wolf]

No . . . the process is designed to generate change and select the best versions and weed out the lesser. Our inability to see it as an improvement and not just a serendipitous change based on random environmental factors is irrelevant. (Notice the use of our ignorance words serendipity and random.)

That isn't how evolution works. You seem to think it's a progression of improvement when in fact, it isn't. I never use serendipity when I discuss evolution and I only use random when I talk about survivors of natural disasters like tsunamis.

If it helps I see us as cells in God's consciousness "body." Imagine your relationship to the cells in your body. You are essentially a God to them. How much attention do you pay to them? What is your involvement? When they "pray" to you (pain signals) . . you address them . . . otherwise you expect them to function as designed. IF each individual cell was aware (as we are) they would think their brief existence was all there was and then they die . . . seem familiar at all.

That isn't helpful at all. I know how the cells in my body work. I know how they allot resource management and work load and how many of them are essentially immortal. (that is until I die).
Individual cells feel no pain, it's only a very specialized few that do and they can act up.

Indeed not all the cells in my body are even mine. I am host to millions of bacteria that I can't live without and who provide me with biochemical services as I provide them a stable environment.

Of course not . . . but separate explanatory names (nature and natural) are not supportable. You cannot scientifically establish they are separate from God or God's will. I really don't know what the solution is . . . because to use God is societally foolish and would probably cause more harm than good. But the loss of belief in what is to me indisputably true seems a pathetic legacy for our otherwise fabulous scientific achievements. What I have been subjecting you all to is my frustration and emotional aggravation at the absurd schism between science and God that has become intransigent and seemingly ineradicable. I apologize . . . but frustration does that to us all.

Science can not declare "goddidit". You can not experiment on god.
It is as simple as that.

Individual scientists may believe as they wish. As I do.. but until I can prove experimentally that god is the one pushing the subatomic particles around to change my DNA, then god has to remain out of the publication.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

If you have to ask . . . I must assume you are less of a scientist than you have been billed as. A "field" refers to an area under the influence of some force, such as gravity or electricity. A universal (or unified) field theory would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various individual field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

This doesn't answer the question. Why must there be a single unifying field?
Why do those seemingly incompatible aspects need to be reconciled?

As Michio Katu said, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." Absent a field our mathematics would not work and be meaningless. Maxwell's electromagnetic field and Einstein's gravity field became problematic when Quantum theory (strong and weak nuclear forces) emerged. Relativity explains the macro world and quantum theory explains the micro . . . but they are incompatible. The idea that "nature" would prescribe two completely incompatible ways for the world to work was unacceptable . . . the Holy Grail became the search for the universal (or unified) field theory that would reconcile ALL the forces that establish the current fields. The standard model reconciles the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces . . . but not gravity. NO field is NOT an option.

So essentially it's needed because you think it is... because "nature would never work that way".

Here you are decrying the use of 'random' and 'probability' and you are holding up the most vague and unsupportable sources of fuzzy math in existence.
It's so theoretical as to be useless outside of metaphysics and thought experiments.

Unified field theory is not a magic key to god. You want to defend it, you have to do better than "I don't think the universe can operate without it".

wa:do